In addition to being Earth Day, April 22 is also the birthday of V. I. Lenin, who in 1902 famously took on the old question of how we can create a better world. His answers may no longer resonate, but some criticisms of capitalism seem increasingly relevant as our economic system faces a new challenge in today's environmental exigencies.
On college campuses across the country, and increasingly among the general population as well, people express outrage and anger over our government's attitudes towards the environment. We rail against big business for its unethical and ecologically damaging practices. Yet, as we try to hold to account the larger-scale institutions that ought to be doing better, we should ask ourselves: are we as individuals doing our share to make things better?
Almost every human activity requires external sources of energy. Affluent societies are increasingly dependent upon energy to maintain their lifestyles while developing countries require more energy to improve their standards of living. As both population and GDP have grown across the globe, so has energy use: at present people use about ten times as much energy as in the early 1900s, and this amount is projected to double by 2050 and at least triple by 2100. Most of our energy today — about 85 percent globally — comes from fossil fuels. These fossil fuels pose a danger to our society for two primary reasons: there is increasing evidence that their greenhouse gas emissions are closely linked to serious climate changes, and the sources for this energy pose a dangerous threat to our national security. In the face of increasing energy demand, can we face the daunting task of reducing fossil fuel consumption through alternative fuels and conservation?
As you might have read in <i>The Tech</i> last week, the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR) recently submitted their recommendations on divestment from Sudan to the MIT Corporation's Executive Committee (a whopping seven months after they first convened). But what you might not have heard was that on that same day, the issue of MIT's divestment came up in another forum: during the Karl Taylor Compton lecture by Senator Edward Kennedy.
The April 3, 2007 news article about the Department of Defense investigation into MIT's Lincoln Laboratory misstated the nature of the review on which the charges were based. According to the MIT News Office, the review evaluated a piece of software developed by military contractor TRW that was intended for, but never used in, a missile defense flight test. The researchers used data from an earlier test to examine whether the software worked as claimed by TRW. They were not asked to evaluate the flight test.
Science may be close to identifying the biological basis of sexual orientation. Dwight M. Chambers, in his Friday column, argues that a pregnant mother should not be able to alter a fetus in order to stop it from becoming homosexual later in life, offering as a reason the effective genocide of homosexuals; an atrocity which would unfortunately be permitted under current jurisprudence. In fact, the law does not prohibit alteration of a fetus; it even allows its termination under the "right to privacy."
There is wisdom in the old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The Reverend R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is arguing that parents should take advantage of technological advances (hormone therapy) to identify and alter fetuses that will grow up to be gay. We can ill afford to let his ideas stand unchallenged.
You know, it was a major disappointment to hear that Charles Vest would be our Commencement Speaker. Don't get us wrong, we like Chuck Vest — nice guy, good President, did some great things for MIT. But a commencement speaker is supposed be captivating and bring new insight and outside perspective to graduates who are about to enter the real world. Vest has barely left — I mean, he's still a professor here. If you want to hear him speak, go any day of the week, and knock on his office door at 32G-618. Moreover, he was President for the majority of our years here, so we already know him quite well.
Over the past month, two events concerning Israel’s role in the Middle East have occurred at MIT. While the forum sponsored by MIT’s School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences and the Social Justice Cooperative [sic] featuring Rabbi Weiss and Imam al-Asi has received most of the attention, an enlightening talk was held last Thursday. Without much fanfare or support by the MIT administration, women’s rights activist Yael Dayan spoke about sexual equality in Israel and the Middle East.
During my first year in the UA Senate, there were many people who had opinions, or sent me feedback, but Steve, a freshman on my hall, was the most interested in the actual work. He was talented when it came to understanding and analyzing, and suggesting courses of action for Institute and UA politics, so I often used him as a sounding board, and suggested that he should run for Senate himself.
Four years after entering the Second World War, the United States and her allies had responded to an existential threat by defeating the enemy on two fronts on opposite sides of the world. Four years after preemptively declaring war on Iraq, we are still mired in a conflict that has taken 3,211 American lives and those of at least 60,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. While the initial military defeat of the Iraqi army was relatively well-executed, there was a total lack of planning for the reconstruction of a functioning society. Senior Defense Department management expressed utter disdain for State Department plans to rebuild Iraq, and many of the problems faced today can be directly traced to the inept decision-making in the first days of the conflict. With this kind of track record, we must not allow President Bush to expand the war to Iran.